- From: Eve L. Maler <eve.maler@east.sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:18:01 -0500
- To: "Jason Diamond" <jason@injektilo.org>
- Cc: <www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org>
Sigh. This is why I shied away from putting a DTD in there for so long. An argument could be made either way in this case, since there is normative prose in the spec about this (suggesting #IMPLIED is correct), but it describes what XLink applications *won't* do when href isn't there (suggesting #REQUIRED is correct). I think I should probably keep it #REQUIRED and add some explanation. BTW, I expect that a proposal on XLink infoset contributions will be made public soon, which should help a lot... Eve At 08:53 AM 1/18/01 -0800, Jason Diamond wrote: > > >Why does the DTD make the xlink:href attribute on the simple element > > >REQUIRED, when 5.2 specifically allows this? It makes the link > > >untraversable, but so would an extended link with fewer than two > > >resources, yet the DTD does not disallow this. > > > You're right. It should be #IMPLIED. I think I cut and pasted (blush). > >But the intro to the DTD says that "only constructs that have XLink-defined >meaning are allowed." What's the XLink-defined meaning of a simple-type >element with no href? > >Is the DTD trying to allow only "traversable" constructs? The comment below >the location element seems to imply this--thus the reason for requiring href >and label. > >Curiously, though, the label attribute is not required on resource. Are >inline resources considered automatically traversable? Without a label, I >don't see that it's possible to refer to a resource from an arc-type >element. > >I understand that the DTD is non-normative but I'm trying to understand what >an XLink-aware processor should be reporting to an application. An XLink >infoset would be really nice. > >Jason Diamond >http://injektilo.org/ -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ east.sun.com
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 13:16:12 UTC